memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Cardassian ATR-4107
FA status Nomination *Dreadnought -- Acually read this for the first time today and I was supremely impressed with it. — THOR 18:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC) **'Wary' - The information is good, but I always cringe when I see so much information contained in parentheses. -- Dmsdbo 21:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC) **No disrespect, Dmsdbo, but if you see something you don't like, rather than complain about it, why don't you try and fix it, like I've tried to do. I agree this should be featured now. zsingaya 09:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC) *** That is, of course, a valuable comment! I did not have time to work on the rewrite at the time, and my "wary" remark was NOT an objection, just a remark. -- Dmsdbo 13:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Removal I do not think the Cardassian ATR-4107 article is worthy of FA status. Although it is detailed, I just do not think it compares with the likes of Force field or Cloaking device for example - similarly themed articles. Also, looking back at the voting process, there was only one vote for FA status. I think this article needs to be reconsidered. -- TrekFan Talk 16:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC) *'Remove' as a FA. First, I agree that the fact there was only one vote in favor originally should at least cause us to re-discuss the issue. Second, it reads to me as little more than a summary of the episode. While there is nothing wrong with that, I think a FA should be unique and different.--31dot 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC) * Oppose w/o any specific complaints against the article (as are below with regard to planet killer); I find the article well-written, comprehensive, accurate, and undisputed. As for the nomination, while only two editors explicitly supported the nomination, nobody opposed it or had any specific arguments (in fact, the parenthetical comment by User:Dmsdbo seems ot have been resolved since). — THOR ''=/\='' 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC) ** Comment - But surely it should follow today's voting process where 5 votes are required? In my opinion two votes for an article is simply not enough for a community this size. -- TrekFan Talk 16:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC) *** There is a degree of " " with a number of the articles that came pre-current FA policy, which is a good chunk of our existing list. In terms of the number of votes, this "removal suggestion" can suppliment that if enough people vote. As far as the article itself, it could be subsectioned up a bit, so as to not look so much like an episode summary. --Alan 17:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC) * 2:1 less than required. Archived. --Alan 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Why didn't the Cardassians incorporate the technology into their ships? Not to be anal, but if the weaponry was so advanced on the dreadnought, why didn't the Cardassians incorporate its weapons and advanced computers onto their warships? The ships would be incredibly powerful, and may be able to take on several defiant class or galaxy class ships. The missile made it seem like Cardassian weapons technology was decades if not a whole a century ahead of the Federation. ~~GMoney~~ :I'm not sure, but we do not put speculation in articles.--31dot 08:57, July 14, 2010 (UTC) Relevance? s bridge, Tom Paris commented "When a bomb starts talking about itself in the third person, I get worried."}} It might just be me being stupid, but I don't see the relevance of this section where it is. It seems to be more suited as a memorable quote in the episode article where, evidently, it already is. -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:50, January 30, 2011 (UTC) :Agreed. I removed it. Not sure why it was formatted as background info anyway; since it was something actually said in canon. –Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:43, January 31, 2011 (UTC) Split This page should be split so as to make a distinction between the class and the ship. Unless this was a prototype and a one of a kind, where we need to make the distinction in the links we use. --Alan (talk) 16:11, November 10, 2018 (UTC) :I'd say the "class" would be self-guided tactical missile. Kennelly (talk) 16:07, February 26, 2019 (UTC)